I wouldn't say Christians fail, I would say they haven't tried to do those things. Maybe Christians don't have enough faith to believe that God could heal an amputation, maybe they've never thought about it before, I know I've never thought about it before I heard about this site.

Again; what is the difference between this, and a god that does not exist? Or at least a god that does not answer prayers?

Quote

I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

Humans are the ones that assign meaning and "point" to life. Both our own and others. That's the way it always has been. The only reason why a "god" is assigned responsibility for those things is to give them "weight".

I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average. But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

I'll admit it, I was wrong. You ever did say that God WON'T Heal amputees. You've just been making excuses as to why he DOESN'T heal amputees, all while ignoring the "Why should he do it?" question in regards to why God would heal OTHER medical conditions, but not amputees, especially since you seen to think that disfiguring and disabling injuries and illnesses are caused by God (or else why else would He let it happen?). If you are going to attempt to use this as an excuse as to why God won't heal amputees, you also have to explain why it would not be applicable to all other healing miracle situations. You assume the medical cases are bogus[/quote]Well seeing as even you can not demonstrate WHY God should intervene in ANY medical case, of course I will think they are bogus. They are also bogus because they are ambiguous. That is why the lack of healed amputees stand out, because a spontaneously regenerated limb would be entirely not ambiguous, and could really only be attributed to a deity. People finding their car keys with help from God is not impressive to me either. If you really want me to believe that someone can be so dumb, and DESIGNED by God so poorly as to be entirely unable to do a mundane thing such as locate their keys without divine intervention, then I really don't know how they are ever able to accomplish anything at all. Do they need divine intervention to wipe their ass too?

Quote

as you assume that No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, God will not answer their prayer and yet you have no real proof of that. All you have is BELIEF.

We have a complete absence of evidence suggesting that such a thing is true. Therefore, we rightly say "I have no reason at all to believe that such a thing is true." If there was plenty of evidence to suggest that prayer DOES work that way, and we still said otherwise, THEN we would be going on faith, because we would hold a belief in spite of the actual evidence. However, seeing as the evidence for the efficacy of prayer does not exist, it takes NO faith to hold a position that matches the best available evidence, even if that evidence is none. To assume something based on no evidence takes faith, which is WHAT YOU ARE DOING, NOT US!

Quote

Atheists claim

If what follows these two words is anything other than "There is no God" then it is, by definition, not applicable to atheists.

Quote

to be grounded in reason and logic but they

No, atheists claim there is no God.

Quote

mostly are emotional and they have faith in their convictions and don't follow reason.

You should really look up the definitions of words, as well as their contextual meaning, before attempting to construct a sentence.

Quote

Just because God doesn't heal amputees "as far as you and I know" doesn't mean he can't or won't or hasn't" you don't have ultimate knowledge. If he did heal one you would explain it away as you have the other healings.

Since neither the healed amputee nor any of the other "healings" have ever actually occurred, this is a pretty pointless question. If it had actually occurred, I wouldn't feel the need to explain it away at all. You are the one attempting to explain why God can, and could, but perhaps not should, if he would, heal amputees. This is your word salad, after all.

What is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what"?

I'm guessing he will say stuff like murder and rape. You know, the stuff God does all of the time in the Bible, in spite of the fact that if he exists, those things are wrong no matter what. Of Course.

I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average.

Well, thanks for that!

Quote

But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.

They are subjective, and they always will be subjective. So, we can use our own subjectivity to call another society wrong using our morals.

But, I see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, there a certain theocratic societies in the Mid-East that believe that they, too, operate on objective morality, and my guess is that they'd find you quite immoral. Unless, of course, you follow ALL the OT laws.

Quote

If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

I wouldn't say Christians fail, I would say they haven't tried to do those things. Maybe Christians don't have enough faith to believe that God could heal an amputation, maybe they've never thought about it before, I know I've never thought about it before I heard about this site.

ROFL. Sure, Coink, Christians have never tried to pray for a amputation to be healed. It’s sad that this is the best you have. Now that you’ve thought of it, why do you fail or why do you refuse to heal someone?

Quote

The reason I came here is because this is such a unique argument. I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

Poor thing, you have trouble when someone who doesn’t’ agree with you has no problem being honorable and humane. And the reason you have trouble is that you lie and try to imagine that all atheists are nihilists. Well, lying to yourself does cause problems. There is plenty of meaning and “point” to life. I have love, happiness. I’m sorry you don’t or think those things are worth anything or that you don’t have them.

Quote

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

There’s plenty of moral value to them, just not moral value assigned by some imaginary bogeyman.

Quote

Yes William Lane Craig, he's the one that Richard Dawkins will not debate. You ought to watch some of his debates where he debates the points and the Atheist just keeps spewing God is evil Christianity is bad for 2 hours.

Yep, and do you know why Dawkins won’t debate him? It’s not because Dawkins hasn’t already answered his lies, it is because WLC is a deceitful bastard on stage. If WLC’s arguments were so good, you’d think he’d reply to Dawkins in writing. But he can’t. I do like to see you keep lying, coink, wiwthyour claim that “atheists gloss over facts” and of course having no evidence of such a thing. I’ve seen those debates and I know you are lying. That’s unfortunate for you and really makes me wonder about a Christian who tells such inept lies at the cost of his supposed soul.

You claim you “love” people but I dont’ see that at all. I see a person willing to lie to me in order to try to take away my ability to make an informed decision. You don’t love people at all, you want to be validated and acknowledged as “right”. Selfish little thing.

No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs. This happens despite what Jesus promises us in Matthew 21:21, John 14:14, Mark 11:24, etc.

How can you possibly know this? I know you BELIEVE this and it sounds like you BELIEVE it's an absolute fact which I didn't think Atheists held. Anyway I'd like to see your scientific studies that you've done on this with all the faithful Christians you've tested it on.There are scientific studies right? You didn't just put this statement up there because you BELIEVE IT BY FAITH DID YOU?

LadyAthiest did a great rundown on all the studies she had to date in This Blog Post. I invite you to read all of them - there are six studies listed from pubmed as of January 2011.

Logged

"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one." - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

These things that you describe they are just things that happen if you are an Atheist there is no sort of moral value to them.

That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, hombre.

Think about this: Is the only reason you have morals is because of your fear of god's punishment? Would you, in fact, be a rapist, murderer, or worse if you didn't believe? I contend that you would not. You would be no more immoral whether you believed in hell, or not.

And thanks for working on your quoting! It makes it so much easier to comprehend.

I'm very pessimistic it's true. I try to be encouraging and optimistic most of the time but it's difficult. I don't fear God's punishment, I don't have to. I serve God out of loving obedience, I do fear Him as in reverence.I wouldn't be a rapist, murderer, or worse if I didn't believe but I could do a lot of things I don't do now if I didn't believe. I was an unbeliever til I was 22 so I did quite a bit. For one thing I could lie and not worry about it, or if I talked about people behind their backs it wouldn't be wrong. I could feel superior to other people but according to the Bible I am no better than anyone. I follow the teachings of the Bible and they work and ring true. I follow Jesus because I believe Christianity makes sense and is true. I don't hardly think about Hell unless I'm witnessing and even then I never tell anyone straight out YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! That's not the way to witness. Jesus asked questions and let the Holy Spirit do the work of conviction.

Here is my take. God knew these people were going to be amputated. He knew they were going to lose a limb. If he didn't want them to he wouldn't have allowed them to lose a limb in the first place.

You are quite right,see, the Bible is clear about God - Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Quote

Why should God heal amputees anyway? Is there some reason he should?

Well, yes, there is. If all is possible with god, why draw a line?

I really do not see why God/Jesus cured the blind: God hates both the lame and the blind:

2Sa:5:8: And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

So why cure the blind and not the lame?

A thing that always bothered me is, "Why didn't God/Jesus ever bother with teeth? Did everyone have a good dentist?"

And why didn't he simply give us glasses? What about the shortsighted? Did he not care for them? And what happened to those with smallpox?

And come to that, why did God make cripples? Why did he make viruses? Why did he give us teeth that go bad?

He's a bit of a useless god if you ask me, have you tried any other gods?

For one thing I could lie and not worry about it, or if I talked about people behind their backs it wouldn't be wrong. I could feel superior to other people but according to the Bible I am no better than anyone.

Sure, you could do those things, but would you? I know I don't, or at least not maliciously.

Quote

I follow the teachings of the Bible and they work and ring true. I follow Jesus because I believe Christianity makes sense and is true.

Which parts work? Which parts ring true, and which part is true? Surely, not the part we already discussed and agreed as being incorrect.

Quote

I don't hardly think about Hell unless I'm witnessing and even then I never tell anyone straight out YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! That's not the way to witness.

You think? LOL

But you do think we're all going to hell. Perhaps I missed it, but what's your version of hell? Forgive my ignorance, but on another thread, just today, I was told by a Christian believer that there is no hell. So color me confused.

The reason I came here is because this is such a unique argument. I have trouble when Atheists use words like Honorable and Humane though, in a world of blind chance of cause and effect where morals are decided by society and culture, where there is no meaning or point to life or anything it strikes me odd that you use such words to describe things.

Poor thing, you have trouble when someone who doesn’t’ agree with you has no problem being honorable and humane. And the reason you have trouble is that you lie and try to imagine that all atheists are nihilists. Well, lying to yourself does cause problems. There is plenty of meaning and “point” to life. I have love, happiness. I’m sorry you don’t or think those things are worth anything or that you don’t have them.

How do you know what Imagine Professor X?No I have problems when Atheists USE WORDS like Honorable and Humane. I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they? We are all just animals determined to do what we do by chance. Love is a metaphysical thing that doesn't exist in the physical world. Most Atheists I've met and excuse me if you are not in this camp believe that the physical world is all there is.

Since you like to pray and witness why don't you pick one of us and pray real hard that we see the light. How long do you think it will take? days, weeks, months? This might be a sliver of the proof we are asking for and you can champion your God for answering prayer.

I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average. But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

This is an interesting thought - that there's a certain baseline for human action that comes "through God". What makes it so interesting is that it has within it a very testable hypothesis, to wit: "Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral." This makes sense, doesn't it? After all, those most in tune with the Divine would be those who most fully expressed it in their lives.

There are several imperfect censuses (censi?) that place the prison population of the US as highly religious - that would seem to be enough to refute that hypothesis, but the studies are inherently flawed as prisoners will often say whatever will give them a perceived easier time of it in jail. There's a very valid question that simply asks: are prisoners who profess faith given preferential treatment? Sadly, that's often very true; social workers, judges, advocates, and even guards and wardens look upon a person's commitment to faith as a positive step toward rehabilitation, and often 'ease up' on prisoners who are especially devout. Given that phenomenon, it's not startling that most prisoners would claim to be faithful.

So, we'd have to look at other metrics. We can start sociologically - in the Western world, in most parts of developing Africa, the Church is the de facto moral authority. It comes out of the african Shamanic tradition; "wise men" and "witch men" were the ones that directed the tribal mystical requirements. In the modern day, this reverence for the mystic has moved in response to the evangelical effort to convert the continent.

While there are many good Christian folk in Africa, Christianity is the root of Koney's Army, its prohibitions against witchcraft are used to slaughter children when bad things happen, and western evangelicals have convinced African governments to make homosexuality a capital offence. Let me reiterate that: American evangelicals went over to Africa and convinced several governments there (Uganda foremost) that they should make being gay punishable by death.

You can also look at the slavery issue in the US, where the bible was brought out to defend slave ownership by good Christian folk who honestly thought they were doing the Lord's will:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

"... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

Such moral men are these! ... but they were, at the time. Morals have changed over the intervening (nearly) two centuries; our culture has grown to embrace the concept that freedom is a universal right, independent of the color of someone's skin.

You see? Morals do change - sometimes exceptionally rapidly.

It is a common bias to assume that the way things are is the way things always have been and always will be. That's simply confirmation bias at work - you've not experienced what people do or claim is 'moral' by virtue of their faith, and so you assume that the faithful are, in fact, like you. [Assumedly] good people, people who go to your church, who smile on Sundays, who are seen doing good works somewhere along the way. If, however, Christianity invariably led to moral behavior (as presupposed), where morals are defined by the western culture that prizes freedom, individual initiative, opportunity, and equality, then that is just... sadly.. not true. At all.

Atheist morality (for those that truly consider it) begins with the presupposition that this life is the only one existent, that there are no second chances, and that human life has value. If we take these as a certain baseline assumption, then the rest logically follows:

- People are valuable, therefore we must treat them as though they are valuable. People matter.- People only have one life, and since that life matters, it behooves all of us to live the best life we can.- Living the best life we can means experiencing all that we can, harming no one, and improving the lives of those around us to give them the opportunity to do precisely the same.- Since there is no divine spark, there is no divine 'punishment' - this means that problems like starvation, poverty, slavery, opression, brutality, violence.. these are human problems with human solutions. We must act to address them, for if we do not, we will not be saved by some outside benevolence.- No one "deserves" good or bad fortune; life is messy.

... well, you should try out some Bertrand Russell to see the core of Humanism. It's a bit too lengthy to go into here, but it certainly does not require a God, and most definitely actively seeks to improve the lot of the world rather than simply 'offering hope'.

Anyroad - the point is that you make an interesting assertion that has no basis in fact. Additionally, your assertion that morality comes from God exclusively misses the fact that entire worthwhile moral systems can be built without any reference to God at all... and, as those moral systems focus on action over prayer, they actually have a chance to make a positive difference.

Why? Muslims use them. Amazonian tribesmen have similar concepts. People who don't believe as you do really are moral.

Mind you, "honor" has undergone some changes over the millennia - even today, some Evangelical Christians respond to the besmirching of family honor in odd ways. My wife and I are becoming foster parents; one of the girls our social worker is discussing with us is a fourteen-year-old who got pregnant, and was thrown out of her house to live in the street. Due to confidentiality requirements, I can't go into too much detail - but I can tell you that the dad that did the tossing runs a church, and the mom that stood by him runs it with him.

So - let's talk about morality: the pastor that throws his daughter in the street is 'honorable' and 'humane', right?

By the by, the most common atheist philosophies are Bhuddism (which emphasizes compassion, humility, and love), and Humanism (which emphasizes action, compassion, and the value of human life). These schools of thought have no God - but your bible has entire chapters devoted to genocide, slavery, murder, incest, and other rapacious behavior.

Isn't it odd that you would equate 'humane' behavior with a book that contains that kind of content while ignoring philosophies that eschew God and focus on humane behavior entirely?

Quote

I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they? We are all just animals determined to do what we do by chance. Love is a metaphysical thing that doesn't exist in the physical world.

Don't put words in our mouths, sir. Love most definitely exists; I love my wife. I love this world, and am constantly amazed by its beauty. Love doesn't come from your God - a God that, if is book is to be believed, tortures people for all eternity due to the mistake of an immature man-child millenia ago, and who needs blood sacrifices to be able to tolerate tresspasses against him.

Bluntly, I think Christians have so little concept of 'love' in the wider sense that it almost feels broken to me. Nothing you've said so far even begins at hinting of any sort of 'love' in any idealistic sense.

If you ask me where love comes from, then? My response will be within humanity. We are hardwired to be social, hardwired to care. We place the welfare of the group ahead of our own (for the most part), and love is its purest expression - just like chimps, apes, dolphins, bonobos, wolves, ravens, and - to some extent - even ants and bees. Creatures that (according to your beliefs) have no souls express love. Why do we need a God for that?

Quote

Most Atheists I've met and excuse me if you are not in this camp believe that the physical world is all there is.

Isn't that enough?

Logged

"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one." - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

Oh, now the indignant claims of a Christian because I call them on their assumptions. Nope, dear, I don’t have to be psychic to know exactly what you think about atheists. And it would be Phoenix, by the way

You see, words are very useful and I see what you write. You make baseless claims that atheists shouldn’t be humane or honorable since you assume we must think that life has no meaning. You lie about what you want the atheist point of view to be. Like right below in the next part of your post. I do like when Christians make it this easy. Why yes, atheists do use words and you have trouble with it. And why do you have trouble with it? Well, here we go.

Quote

No I have problems when Atheists USE WORDS like Honorable and Humane. I just think from the Atheist point of view things like love and meaning are just social constructs, they don't really exist do they? We are all just animals determined to do what we do by chance. Love is a metaphysical thing that doesn't exist in the physical world. Most Atheists I've met and excuse me if you are not in this camp believe that the physical world is all there is. But as I said before Atheists are moral folk on average.

There you go with the capitalization of “atheist” again showing you ignorantly attempt to claim that all atheists simply must be nihilists. Thinking that the real world is all there is does not equate to thinking that life has no meaning or “point”. And no love isn’t a metaphysical thing. Sorry, fail again. Love is from the brain, all chemistry. Love is actions showing concern for someone else and wanting the best for them and wanting to be with them because you enjoy their company. All brain chemistry.

And I’m moral without your primitive violent, god. A god that can’t even be superior than its supposed creations who do love and who do have empathy.

I follow the teachings of the Bible and they work and ring true. I follow Jesus because I believe Christianity makes sense and is true. I don't hardly think about Hell unless I'm witnessing and even then I never tell anyone straight out YOU'RE GOING TO HELL! That's not the way to witness. Jesus asked questions and let the Holy Spirit do the work of conviction.

So you don't eat shrimp, don't wear mixed fiber clothing, give away all you have, live in communal situations sharing money, and living spaces, etc? Let me guess, you don't and you have lots of excuses on why you are sure that your god didn't "really" mean those inconvenient things. Lots of other types ot theists claim the same thing "oooh I believe because it "rings true"!" And all have the same evidence you do, none. So, again why should I be impressed with your version?

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I don't believe you do. I believe you need God to ground your morality but Atheists are very moral people on average. But if morals are decided by society and culture then they aren't objective, you can't really call anything another society or culture does wrong if they all support it within that system.If God exists though there are some things that are actually wrong no matter what the public consensus is.

This is an interesting thought - that there's a certain baseline for human action that comes "through God". What makes it so interesting is that it has within it a very testable hypothesis, to wit: "Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral." This makes sense, doesn't it? After all, those most in tune with the Divine would be those who most fully expressed it in their lives.

There are several imperfect censuses (censi?) that place the prison population of the US as highly religious - that would seem to be enough to refute that hypothesis, but the studies are inherently flawed as prisoners will often say whatever will give them a perceived easier time of it in jail. There's a very valid question that simply asks: are prisoners who profess faith given preferential treatment? Sadly, that's often very true; social workers, judges, advocates, and even guards and wardens look upon a person's commitment to faith as a positive step toward rehabilitation, and often 'ease up' on prisoners who are especially devout. Given that phenomenon, it's not startling that most prisoners would claim to be faithful.

"Since morality comes from God, Godly people should be the most moral." Godly people are the most moral but all believers are not Godly. Many believers don't follow the Bible Love your enemies, esteem others better than yourself etc. It doesn't stand to reason that just because a person professes faith in God they automatically become holy and perfect. The Bible talks of sanctification, putting behind sin and bad behaviour and practicing and learning Godly behaviour. The disciples didn't always do everything exactly right even after the Holy Spirit came and Jesus was resurrected. Do Atheists really believe Christians have to be perfect for God to exist? The children of Israel were disobedient often as well.

So, we'd have to look at other metrics. We can start sociologically - in the Western world, in most parts of developing Africa, the Church is the de facto moral authority. It comes out of the african Shamanic tradition; "wise men" and "witch men" were the ones that directed the tribal mystical requirements. In the modern day, this reverence for the mystic has moved in response to the evangelical effort to convert the continent.

While there are many good Christian folk in Africa, Christianity is the root of Koney's Army, its prohibitions against witchcraft are used to slaughter children when bad things happen, and western evangelicals have convinced African governments to make homosexuality a capital offence. Let me reiterate that: American evangelicals went over to Africa and convinced several governments there (Uganda foremost) that they should make being gay punishable by death.

You can also look at the slavery issue in the US, where the bible was brought out to defend slave ownership by good Christian folk who honestly thought they were doing the Lord's will:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage." - Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th century Southern Presbyterian pastor

"... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

Such moral men are these! ... but they were, at the time. Morals have changed over the intervening (nearly) two centuries; our culture has grown to embrace the concept that freedom is a universal right, independent of the color of someone's skin.

Quote

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God

Where is that?

Quote

the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example]

Is it now?

Slavery in America is much different from the slavery f the Bible. Slaves were set free after 7 years, usually it was indentured servitude to pay off a debt, they were treated as members of the family and some would choose to become bondslaves for life at the end of the 7 years. If you struck a slave he went FREE! It was illegal to kidnap in the Jewish law so there was no capture and subjugation. The slaves of 200 years ago were kidnapped and kept for life and beaten ALL PROHIBITED in scripture.

Quote

Such moral men are these! ... but they were, at the time.

So why are you complaining if the morality at the time was that slavery was moral you can't call it immoral by those standards. Society and Culture have decided it is wrong NOW Right?

So, we have the belief that Godly people are the most moral. So, what happens when you have people who are decidedly not Godly (for example, they belong to some other religion or no religion at all) yet are very moral? In fact, what if they happened to be as moral as, or more moral than, a Godly Christian believer? It would be a contradiction in terms; if morality is an expression of Godliness, but you have someone who is not Godly at all and yet is very moral, then either the person is in fact Godly despite not worshiping God, or morality is not an expression of Godliness.

If a person can be moral despite being a believer in some other religion, or not believing in a religion, or even rejecting religions entirely, then the whole concept of Godly morality is flawed, because their morality is grounded outside of Christian beliefs.

Oh, now the indignant claims of a Christian because I call them on their assumptions. Nope, dear, I don’t have to be psychic to know exactly what you think about atheists. And it would be Phoenix, by the way

You see, words are very useful and I see what you write. You make baseless claims that atheists shouldn’t be humane or honorable since you assume we must think that life has no meaning. You lie about what you want the atheist point of view to be.

Quote

You make baseless claims that atheists shouldn’t be humane or honorable

I didn't say they Shouldn't be.

Quote

You lie about what you want the atheist point of view to be.

I know many Atheists agree with Richard Dawkins if you are not in that camp I apologize.

Quote

Richard Dawkins has said; “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

No Purpose, no evil, no good, sounds like an absence of meaning. I can quote other famous Atheists who say pretty much the same thing. I've heard this for over 20 years it's not a new concept. I don't understand what all the complaints are about if there is No Purpose, no evil, no good, it's all just stuff that happens. I don't think I'm mischaracterizing the Atheist position here. I've heard many quotes that life is purposeless, meaningless and we live in a universe of blind chance that we are molecules in motion.

Once again I don't think Atheists are immoral I just think you have no Grounding for your morality if it's decided by society and culture and is subject to change. If it's subjective you can't really call anything wrong can you?